Eric Steinhart

Many ontologies posit levels of existence. A whole exists at a level above its parts; a set exists at a level above its members. Hardware objects are at the lowest level in a computational ontology. Software objects exist at higher levels. The game of life illustrates a stratified computational ontology. The cells in the life grid are the hardware objects. An event is a function from cells to values 0 or 1. A process is a series of events. A process contains a software object iff its content is generated by some rule that is independent of the rule for cells. We give a precise existence axiom for software objects. As expected, blinkers, gliders, puffer trains, and so on are software objects. Software objects satisfy traditional conceptions of materiality. Our conception of software objects has intriguing links to modern conceptions of material particles in terms of symmetry groups and topological invariants. Software objects are not abstract.

Spiritual naturalists say that spirit is a natural force. Far from being novel or unconventional, spiritual naturalism spans the entire history of Western thought, from the Stoics, through leading modern thinkers, to the transhumanists. Spirit drives the self-organization of matter. The spirituality of any thing is just its degree of self-organization, which is its evolved complexity. But self-organization is self-regulation and self-control. Many spiritual naturalists, especially the transhumanists, have developed naturalistic phenomenologies of spirit. These are narratives which trace the ideal evolution of complexity from the origin of our universe to its end. They are spiritually optimal possible histories of our universe. During the phases of any spiritually optimal history, humanity will perfect itself. But transhumanists say that the ideal evolution of complexity will greatly surpass humans. We will be surpassed by superhuman animals; but these will be surpassed by superhuman robots and godlike computers. The ideal end of the cosmos is an Omega Point with infinite spirituality.

A deity is a superhuman person. Since deities are persons, they are axiologically comparable with each other. They are comparable in terms of their moral, political, and other axiological qualities. I regard all deities as contingent concrete worldbound particulars. To compare deities is to compare possible objects across worlds. I aim to compare the axiological qualities of deities taken from the entire Western ecosystem of deities. I will compare deities in terms of their moral and political qualities (this deity is a morally better person than that deity). I will compare them in terms of their relations with non-divine persons (this deity is better for humans than that deity). I will compare the worlds in which the deities occur (a world with this type of deity is a better world than a world with that type of deity). I will compare types of deities and use specific deities to illustrate those types. The deities of some popular theologies are very bad; but the deities of some less popular theologies are very good.

Metaphor's peculiar property to yield cognitive insight-- often in otherwise false sentences -- has been the focus of contemporary studies of metaphor. In Metaphor: Its Linguistic Structure and Cognitive Force, Eva Kittay develops the semantic field theory of metaphor (SFTM). The task of the present work is to formalize some of the central claims of SFTM. Formalization forces us to make the central concepts of SFTM precise and operational, and it enables us to evaluate the consistency and explanatory power of SFTM through empirical testing. To empirically test our formalization of SFTM, we constructed a working computer program from it. This program, called NETMET, is highly successful in generating syntactically complex and semantically interesting metaphors. Its success provides empirical confirmation of SFTM.

Digitalists base their thoughts about reality on concepts taken from the sciences of information and computation. For digitalists, these sciences are prior to the physical sciences. Digitalists emphatically reject substance metaphysics. They are neither materialists nor idealists nor dualists. They have their own novel definitions of bodies, minds, lives, and souls. They talk about digital universes running on digital gods, and they regard nature as a recursively self-improving system of computations. They endorse digitized theories of resurrection and reincarnation. But they also argue for deeper and more mathematical approaches to life after death. All these digital ideas are naturalistic. They are consistent with our best sciences.

There are two main ways to develop practices in religious naturalism. The first way is to practice within some traditional religion. Since those religions involve the worship of divine persons, which religious naturalists reject, religious naturalists must develop non-literal or fictional styles of participation in those religions. The second way is to develop new naturalistic religions. Since these will not be religions of worship, they will be religions of self-realization. Self-realization includes physiological, ethical, and spiritual self-realization. The goal of spiritual self-realization is an ideal self whose concern includes all things and which is therefore existentially unified with nature. Techniques for self-realization include Stoic and Buddhist meditative practices, transformational festivals, and the use of entheogens.

My dissertation aims to provide a formal semantic theory for metaphors and a computational model of that theory. A computer program, NETMET, implements the ideas presented in the dissertation. Working in a thoroughly cognitive manner, my dissertation is both rigorously mathematical and psychologically well-informed. The dissertation is scientific in method. The reasoning is primarily abductive, and each proposed hypothesis is validated against large, detailed examples from the history of philosophy and science. ;The dissertation begins by sketching a formal theory of conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is modeled as a semantic network of concepts: concepts are modeled as network nodes, propositions as structures containing such nodes. A semantic field is characterized as a cluster of densely interrelated concepts. ;The core of the dissertation is a formal theory of analogy. It is argued that analogies serve as the primary basis for the generation of metaphors. Analogies are viewed as approximate homomorphisms from a source semantic field to a target field. Constraint-satisfaction algorithms are presented for computing analogies and for transfering knowledge from the source to the target by means of an underlying analogy; particular care is taken to transfer the implicative structure of the source field. Such analogical transference produces metaphorical propositions. Rules are given for generating several syntactical forms of metaphorical utterances. ;The dissertation then proceeds to the analysis and interpretation of metaphors. Logical deep structures are provided for several syntactic forms of metaphors. For instance, copula metaphors are shown to be class-inclusion statements . A forward-chaining inference algorithm is presented that deduces literal propositions from metaphorical propositions. It is then shown how such literal entailments can be incorporated into abductive argument schema which confirm or disconfirm metaphors. In this respect, at least, metaphorical propositions are analogous to theoretical statements. Since arguments can be provided for metaphorical propositions, it is argued that they carry truth-values, and so are cognitively meaningful

Religious naturalists say all divine or sacred things are natural. A unifying framework is presented for religious naturalism. Nature has five religiously significant levels of organization. These are nature as a whole, the universe, solar system, earth, and body. Each level involves power, cyclicality, complexity, and evolution. These levels take their religious contents from the Zygon group, the World Pantheist Movement, the New Atheists, the New Stoics, and the Burners. Religious naturalists have also taken ideas from the Wicca, the Green Sisters, and the Evolutionary Christians. Rituals can be performed at each level. Linkages between all complex things and the cycles of nature entail a positive soteriology. No gods are involved in this religious naturalism.

The many kinds of naturalism fall into two main types. Dogmatic naturalists define naturalness using some rule. Progressive naturalists define naturalness in terms of a research program. This research program, illustrated by the sciences, progressively defines things ever more precisely using mathematics. Most traditional religious concepts fail to be natural on any type of naturalism. But progressive naturalists are open to naturalistic revisions of traditional concepts. They do not tie religion to the past, but welcome novel religious and spiritual naturalisms.